Employee Free Choice Act

[Associate Justice PiT]

A majority of members being able to force unionization is no more unfair than a majority of Americans being able to force taxation.

In both cases the minority that doesn't want to pay still enjoys the benefits (the fact that unions exist at all helps all workers, even non-unionzed ones, as everyone's pay and benefits are higher because employers must keep them high in an effort to keep a union from forming).

So is this true in any case where there is a danger of free-riderism?

Let's take the example of an environmentalist lobbying organization that succeeds, from the donations of its members, in curbing pollution in a way that in no way costs the taxpayers any money.  Should I be morally or legally obligated to contribute to them?

I'm not sure if I accept that the social contract automatically applies to the workplace...

No, I don't support all workplaces being forced to unionize, of course. But allowing individual members to opt out would destroy the entire system, just as it would with taxation. If that's someone's goal, fine, but at least be honest about the motive.

     So keeping the system intact is an important enough goal that people should be forced to pledge their allegiance (& a small percentage of their paycheck) to a labor union or else lose their job if a majority of their coworkers want to do the same?

     I disagree with workers being forced into collectivism for the sake of allowing the labor unions to survive.

[Lunar]

I guess my complaint is a little more specific.  I'm fine with the majority of workers negotiating a contract with the business that requires all workers in the business to be due-paying union members, but that would be part of the negotiations and not something mandated from the state.

It seems more than a little backwards to say that because everyone benefits everyone should be legislatively forced to contribute -- like my example of an environmentalist lobby that succeeds in pressuring the government to improve the environment for everyone, using the dues of only its members, for no significant additional cost.  A union is not the government.

It's more than dishonest to say that the only reason to oppose this is the complete destruction of worker's ability to organize. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Democrat: Aye

[??????????]

Strong Nay.

[opebo]

Strong Nay.

$14/hour's good money down there.

[MasterJedi]

Nay (R), the process is fine as it is now, no reason to change it.

[Nym90]

I guess my complaint is a little more specific.  I'm fine with the majority of workers negotiating a contract with the business that requires all workers in the business to be due-paying union members, but that would be part of the negotiations and not something mandated from the state.

It seems more than a little backwards to say that because everyone benefits everyone should be legislatively forced to contribute -- like my example of an environmentalist lobby that succeeds in pressuring the government to improve the environment for everyone, using the dues of only its members, for no significant additional cost.  A union is not the government.

It's more than dishonest to say that the only reason to oppose this is the complete destruction of worker's ability to organize. 

Well no, not everyone should be forced to contribute; as I mentioned, I don't support mandatory unionization, even though all workers, even those in workplaces that don't have a union, get greater pay and benefits due to the existence of unions in other workplaces.

Ok, so I went a little over the line in my bad attempt at humor about the only motivation against it.

[MK]

Aye (D) GA